Thought experiment... what’s the step up model?

[KLRDMD]

23 hours ago, Shadrach said:

To better my Mooney on speed, payload and range by anything significant is going to take a signicant purchase up front and a lot more in operational costs.

Maybe not. The Baron I just bought is essentially a wash with what I'll sell my Mooney for. And operating costs will be about 50% more, but for a LOT more than 50% more utility.

[KLRDMD]

11 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

I'm a little surprised nobody has mentioned the Cessna 210 or P210.  About the same speed as our J, just sucks down more fuel.  Can haul a load and CG is not an issue from what I've been able to learn.  P210 will haul a bit less, and a lot of people don't like the folding gear, but sounds like the OP's family is fairly light weight and should easily fit in the P210 with lots of fuel.

I'm regularly flying a friend's P210. It is significantly faster than a J model Mooney and yes at a greater fuel burn. The one I fly has 1475 lb useful load. I considered buying one but went with a Baron instead.

[jetdriven]

16 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Maybe not. The Baron I just bought is essentially a wash with what I'll sell my Mooney for. And operating costs will be about 50% more, but for a LOT more than 50% more utility.

A J is a 100-150$/hr airplane. You claiming a Baron is only 150-200$ an hour?  really?

Edited January 30, 2018 by jetdriven

[KLRDMD]

3 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

A J is a 100-150$/hr airplane. You claiming a Baron is only 150-200$ an hour?  really?

I fly about 150 hours a year and my non-equity partner flies about 75 hours a year. The Baron will be about 50% more than the Mooney 231 I'm replacing, on a yearly basis - all in.

[jetdriven]

4 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I fly about 150 hours a year and my non-equity partner flies about 75 hours a year. The Baron will be about 50% more than the Mooney 231 I'm replacing, on a yearly basis - all in.

it burns twice the fuel, twice the insurance, and twice the annual.  how do you arrive at 50% more than a 231? 

[peevee]

Extra 400?

 

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/list?NotFound=1&Manu=EXTRA+AIRCRAFT&Mdltxt=EA+400&mdlx=Contains

[MIm20c]

5 hours ago, jetdriven said:

it burns twice the fuel, twice the insurance, and twice the annual.  how do you arrive at 50% more than a 231? 

I think, as @bluehighwayflyer has mentioned, buyers try to find the best maintained/upgraded plane and fly on the sellers “investment” for awhile. I feel that the 55’s are hard to sell, have reasonable wet rate for a twin, and previous owners that can afford great maintenance and lots of upgrades. This IMO sets the stage for very reasonable flying for the new buyer. 

[KLRDMD]

8 hours ago, jetdriven said:

it burns twice the fuel, twice the insurance, and twice the annual.  how do you arrive at 50% more than a 231? 

None of the above are true. Fuel for a given trip is 50% more. The Baron climbs twice as fast and cruises significantly faster than the 231. Insurance is 50% more (the Baron actually has a slightly higher hull value, but same limits as the 231) and annual is 50% more on the Baron than the 231. The Baron fits in the same hangar as the 231 and database updates are the same for the same avionics so the percent increase in those items is 0.

I have a non-equity partner in the Baron (and 231 perviously). I own the airplane 100% but he pays half of the yearly expenses for access to the airplane any time I'm not flying it. His fixed monthly expenses went up 38% going to the Baron and his hourly expenses went up 50%.

I have personally owned 10 singles and 5 twins so I speak from direct experience, not speculation. I'm not the only one to note this, see the attached article.

Economical-Baron-ABS-Article.pdf

[cbarry]

What about a second Mooney?   Surely there’s another up and coming Mooney pilot in the family!  What could be better than a family trip while traveling in tight formation with a fleet of Mooneys?!

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

I fly about 150 hours a year and my non-equity partner flies about 75 hours a year. The Baron will be about 50% more than the Mooney 231 I'm replacing, on a yearly basis - all in.

From your mouth to god’s ears...I wish you good luck with those numbers. 

Too be clear, I was referencing my F Model. I’d have little use for a turbo Mooney.  The Baron makes my point exactly.  On our summer trip from Maryland  to Maine a a B58 would burn 160-250% more fuel depending on how hard you run it to get there 20-30% faster. BFD, both airplanes make althe 460nm trip a piece of cake. In efficiency mode a B58 is still going to need to 550lbs of fuel to land with reserves.  The payload advantage depends on model year and equipment. One of the new G58s would barely eek out a 100lb payload advantage over my F.

so let’s see ~20% faster (call it a half hour) on 160% more gas for a 100lbs to a few 100lbs in payload...

Meh...

 

 

[rbridges]

when the teens get older, are you going to stay under 600 lbs as a family?  I would recommend a 210, saratoga of A36.  I think they'd have the useful load and decent speed at the cost of higher fuel burn.  

 

IMO, it seems that a lot of the newer planes have gotten faster but UL with fuel has gone down.

[flyntgr1]

8 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

A buddy of mine owned a 60s vintage B55 briefly and then a 90s vintage B55 for many years. Admittedly, he flew a lot and I think he was the kind of owner who just wrote checks, but he told me once that it cost him 60K a year to operate his B55s.  Every annual he was replacing cylinders. Maybe he was just a ham-fisted operator, or maybe his maintenance shop was screwing him. I don't know, but to me at least that was a lot. 

Jim

If he was replacing cylinders every annual, he probably wasn’t running it correctly.  With that said, continental 6 cyl engines do require more maintenance than lycoming 4 cyl engines.  Airframe to airframe isn’t much difference between a J and a Baron, but 2 6cyl continentals cost 3 times to overhaul than 1 4 cyl lycoming.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Twin Comanche.  An IO320 powered one is about 10 knots faster than a J on 75% more fuel.  It has some more room and a little more payload and later year models have 6 seats.  Overhaul costs of 2 parallel valve 4cyl lycomings is only 50% more than 1 angle valve 4cyl lycoming.  From a Cheap Bastard stand point, I think it is the logical step up into a Twin.

[Wayne Cease]

24 minutes ago, rbridges said:

when the teens get older, are you going to stay under 600 lbs as a family?  I would recommend a 210, saratoga of A36.  I think they'd have the useful load and decent speed at the cost of higher fuel burn.  

Depends upon the kids.  We did with ours; they are now in college.  Two girls, one 5'6" and a distance runner and the other 5'3" (on a good day  ) and a tennis player.  My wife plays tennis and I run 5k/10k and triathlons.  We're under 600 lbs combined.  When we were all in peak sports shape we were around 600 lbs including luggage.  

 

[rbridges]

3 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

Depends upon the kids.  We did with ours; they are now in college.  Two girls, one 5'6" and a distance runner and the other 5'3" (on a good day  ) and a tennis player.  My wife plays tennis and I run 5k/10k and triathlons.  We're under 600 lbs combined.  When we were all in peak sports shape we were around 600 lbs including luggage.  

 

haha.  My daughter is 130, but my son weighs as much as your two daughters combined.  My plane has been relegated to being a 2 seater.  

[KLRDMD]

54 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

so let’s see ~20% faster (call it a half hour) on 160% more gas for a 100lbs to a few 100lbs in payload...

My 231 has 892 lb useful load. My B55 has 1702 lb useful load. That's pretty close to twice the useful load. I guess you could call 800+ lb "a few 100lbs".

For me, the Baron makes sense. I really don't care if it works for anyone else and I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything. I have many years of experience owing and operating both singles and twins so I have real world knowledge of the true costs associated with this.

For my Flying Samaritans trips, which I make a number of times a year, I cannot expect that fuel will be available in Mexico. In fact fuel has not been available the last three trips I've made. So I need to carry enough fuel to get from Tucson to the west coast of the Baja and back, plus reserves. That includes four take-offs and four climbs to altitude. In the Mooney that means I can take two small to small/average passengers with me. In the Baron I can take five average sized passengers with me, or more commonly four passengers with a lot of supplies. Or even three passengers with a whole lot of supplies. The Baron has an extended baggage area and nose baggage. Try to get that volume of people and stuff in a Mooney. 

Not only that, these trips have me over water for over an hour and over remote areas of the Baja of Mexico. If you're really lucky and really good, you may successfully make an engine out landing in the remote areas of the Baja where I travel, but you'll die before anyone gets there to rescue you. A parachute doesn't help you over the water or the Baja either.

I can also do Angel Flights now that I couldn't in the Mooney due to useful load issues and also Veteran's Airlift Command.

The Baron is the right airplane for me today. I never said it was the right airplane for anyone else.

[peevee]

40 minutes ago, flyntgr1 said:

If he was replacing cylinders every annual, he probably wasn’t running it correctly.  With that said, continental 6 cyl engines do require more maintenance than lycoming 4 cyl engines.  Airframe to airframe isn’t much difference between a J and a Baron, but 2 6cyl continentals cost 3 times to overhaul than 1 4 cyl lycoming.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Twin Comanche.  An IO320 powered one is about 10 knots faster than a J on 75% more fuel.  It has some more room and a little more payload and later year models have 6 seats.  Overhaul costs of 2 parallel valve 4cyl lycomings is only 50% more than 1 angle valve 4cyl lycoming.  From a Cheap Bastard stand point, I think it is the logical step up into a Twin.

all I know is that I'll never own another continental. 3 now.... that's enough.

[KLRDMD]

50 minutes ago, flyntgr1 said:

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Twin Comanche.  An IO320 powered one is about 10 knots faster than a J on 75% more fuel.  It has some more room and a little more payload and later year models have 6 seats.  Overhaul costs of 2 parallel valve 4cyl lycomings is only 50% more than 1 angle valve 4cyl lycoming.  From a Cheap Bastard stand point, I think it is the logical step up into a Twin.

A Twin Comanche is a good airplane, I used to have one. The trouble is finding one in excellent shape today. Most are below average or well below average. Useful load averages about 1,250 lb unless you can find a Robertson STOL one which gives you about 1,400 lb but that is still well short of a typical 310/Baron. The 5th and 6th seats started in the 1966 "B" model but with those seats installed you have zero baggage space. The 5th/6th seat areas are where your baggage would be stowed and TCs do not have nose baggage. If you have need for such an airplane it is a good choice, however.

Twin Comanches are good 165 kt airplanes on 16 GPH. I can get 165 KTAS on less than 18 GPH in the Baron. 

[jetdriven]

Both that article and your latest post show the same speed as a 231 at twice the fuel flow. 

And two engines and props making time. That costs too.  And all the other stuff that twins are made of such as boots and radar and deiced props and dual suction vacuum valves. 

Most of these Mooney annuals are around 3 grand with no repairs. There are always small repairs so call it 5k. Meanwhile my baron and Aerostar friends are paying 15k at minimum and often more  

You may not want believe a Baron is a 400-500$ an hour airplane but it will happen in time.  A 231 is a 15-20 grand a year airplane. I’ve got friends with twins  who have spent 100k on theirs.  Maybe that’s why the ownership period is only two years on average. If you need he utility you need one, however. Just don’t think about the cost. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by jetdriven

[KLRDMD]

1 minute ago, jetdriven said:

Both that article and your latest post show the same speed as a 231 at twice the fuel flow. And two engines and props making time. That costs too.  Most of these Mooney annuals are around 3 grand with no repairs. There are always small repairs so call it 5k. Meanwhile my baron and Aerostar friends are paying 15k. You may not want believe a Baron is a 400-500$ an hour airplane but it will happen in time. 

I have actually owned and operated a Baron in the past and own and operate another Baron currently. In addition I've owned and operated four different Mooneys. My Baron, that I actually own and fly right now, is 30-40 kts faster than my 231 that I also actually own and fly right now, depending on altitude - the way *I* fly the airplanes. And for a given trip, my Baron burns pretty close to 50% more fuel than my 231. Believe anything you want based on your preconceived notions and what people tell you about how they operate their airplanes. I'm going with real life, actual, personal ownership experience.

I highly recommend that you never buy a Baron, just for the record.

[jetdriven]

Your previous post shows 19 GPH and 165KT. But you say this is 30-40 knots  faster and 50% more fuel  so you have a 125-135 knot 231 that burns 12.2 GPH?  That has to be the worst 231 ever  

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by jetdriven

[peevee]

9 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Your previous post shows 19 GPH and 165KT. But you say this is 30-40 knots  faster and 50% more fuel  so you have a 125-135 knot 231 that burns 12.2 GPH?  That has to be the worst 231 ever  

 

our 231 had the merlyn and tplus intercoolers and I planned 185-190 at 180 and 14.5 GPH. It wouldn't run LOP.

I'd take the baron over the 231.

[rbridges]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

My 231 has 892 lb useful load. My B55 has 1702 lb useful load. That's pretty close to twice the useful load. I guess you could call 800+ lb "a few 100lbs".

For me, the Baron makes sense. I really don't care if it works for anyone else and I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything. I have many years of experience owing and operating both singles and twins so I have real world knowledge of the true costs associated with this.

 

Just curious what useful load is with full fuel.  I agree about picking a plane for your specific needs.  There is no one plane (or anything for that matter) that checks everyone's boxes.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, rbridges said:

Just curious what useful load is with full fuel.  I agree about picking a plane for your specific needs.  There is no one plane (or anything for that matter) that checks everyone's boxes.

Mooney: 442 lb

Baron: 886 lb, just a little more than double what the Mooney is.

[Wayne Cease]

19 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Your previous post shows 19 GPH and 165KT. But you say this is 30-40 knots  faster and 50% more fuel  so you have a 125-135 knot 231 that burns 12.2 GPH?  That has to be the worst 231 ever  

 

It's all about how you slice the data.    

A twin shouldn't be twice as much, but it will definitely be more.  I was flying a SR22 and it cost me all-in around $220/hr depending upon fuel prices at ~90 hrs/year.  The Baron 58 I'm flying now runs ~$380/hr for the same conditions.  Now, this Baron has a bad temp spread on the engines, so I can't run it LOP; I wish I could.  But that would knock off only about $20-25/hr.  The Baron will haul a heck of a lot more than the SR22, but it only flies 10 kts faster ROP than the SR22 did LOP at the same altitude.  It costs more in handling and parking fees even though it's about the same size as the SR22; yeah, it's a little bigger and definitely heavier, but still.

The Baron KLRDMD has will run fine LOP, so that helps.  Sounds like it's running better than the Baron 58 I'm flying too.

I'm looking to get back into a SR22 or a Mooney.  The cost of flying the Baron I'm flying is just too high.  Looking like the Mooney option may come together sooner; and it would be really nice to only feed 4 cylinders again.  Only two or maybe three times in two years have I used the Baron where the SR22 would not have been able to handle the flight (seats and/or weight).  A M20F or M20J with a good useful load could do them as well.

 

[Marauder]

34 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

 I'm going with real life, actual, personal ownership experience.

Hey! When does real firsthand experience mean anything? As we have seen repeatedly, personal opinion has just as much weighting... Just ask the Garmin groupie.